Talk:Proto-Vulcan humanoid
Moved from Talk:Vulcanoid There's no evidence the Rigelians, or Romulans, or any vulcanoid species use musical notation as a language. In fact, the Vulcan written language only resembles earth musical notation, and I'm sure wasn't their intention when pre-historic vulcans invented it. I would suggest loosing that sentence. -AJHalliwell 22:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC) : Watch Spock talks about that, although he didn't give any names. --TOSrules 22:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ---- Remans? Are we sure about this? Jaf 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Jaf Made Up Word? I've done a little bit of checking around and I cannot find where the word "vulcanoid" was ever spoken by anyone in the Trek universe. It is not a standard English word, I am unaware of it being on any graphics, and it isn't in the Star Trek Encyclopedia. In fact, the Encyclopedia terms Vulcans "humanoid". Did this word come from somewhere? If made up, why? Aholland 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) : Do they not use the word "proto-Vulcanoid" in If someone can watch the episode and answer, cause I think that is most likely the source.--Tim Thomason 22:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ::That's what I thought as well, but according to the script, it was "proto-Vulcan humanoids" (someone might still want to check the actual episode, though). -- Cid Highwind 22:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ::: Actually, Vulcanoid is a real hypothetical term if you're into that stuff, however it does not apply to the Vulcanoid this page refers to. As to confirm Cid's above entry, if you are referring to Troi's line in the 'teaser', then yes, she said "proto-Vulcan humanoid"-- however, this is coming from a human-o-centric p.o.v.-- perhaps in the case of Vulcans, ancient humans were described as "proto-Human vulcanoids." :) --Alan del Beccio 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :I don't think the species point of view matters, to be honest. Spock constantly used humanoid as the operative phrase. See , , , , , and doubtless others. And Tuvok also used the term: . T'Pol used it too: . In , Paris said "Humanoid life signs over here. I'm reading a Vulcan and several humans." That would indicate that the term "humanoid" is intended to be broad enough to encompass Vulcans. The Doctor in also used the term "humanoid" to describe the thousands of species in the galaxy, and he was always quite precise. And so on. In fact, there is not one instance I am aware of in the entire series in which anyone using Federation standard (i.e., English) used a term to describe a creature similar in appearance to a human as anything other than a "humanoid". So I submit that unless someone finds a source for it the term Vulcanoid is something that would be meaningless in Federation standard. Aholland 04:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :::Okay wow...you totally missed my point. --Alan del Beccio 04:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ::Sorry - I had taken the point to be that it was possible that species-bias could explain the use of "humanoid" instead of "vulcanoid" in dialogue. The examples of usage of humanoid in Federation standard still applies, but it seems I didn't need to get into it quite as much as I did! Aholland 04:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ::So I'm wondering what to do with this article. There is a little bit of good information in it (although some of it is incorrect or unsupported extrapolations). But as "Vulcanoid" isn't a Trek word, isn't an independent English word applicable to Trek (like polywater), and appears to have been made up by someone on Memory Alpha, I'm a little uncomfortable with this as a Trek Universe article as currently written. I may work on it a bit. Aholland 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC) : First of all, I was always under the impression that "Vulcanoid" was a type of Humanoid, and I don't think there's a problem with Vulcans (and all other "Vulcanoids") being called humanoid. Anyways, since Vulcanoid was never ever in a million years used, perhaps we should simply move the article to, um, "Proto-Vulcan humanoid" or something.--Tim Thomason 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ::Take a look first at how I've worked on it and see if it merits keeping as a separate entry on not. I'm on the fence about it. Aholland 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :::First, I'd like to say that I really, really, really, really dislike the use of the term "Federation Standard" (this isn't Star Wars), and I like the idea that they are descended from Sargon's people, so that should be either re-expanded or placed back in the article. So are you suggesting that we have both this page (discussing Vulcanish guys) and also a "proto-Vulcan humanoid" page (discussing the canonical classification of the Mintakans)?--Tim Thomason 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :I was just playing with the article to see if I could turn it into something that worked. I may have failed. If kept, I would suggest: :*Replacing "Federation standard" with "English" as I suspect you are right. What can I say, it was a fast edit. :) :*NOT having a separate page on "proto-Vulcan humanoid". The term was only used once, and I'd suggest simply describing its use in the Mintakan article itself. :*The Vulcans may, or may not, be decended from Sargon's people. The episode only said that Sargon's people, having visited many worlds and left seeds of life there, may "tend . . . to explain certain elements of Vulcan prehistory." But so might the existence of the ancient humanoids. So I would suggest not definitely linking Sargon to Vulcan except as an aside, as in the rewrite. :I would also support a deletion of the page. As I said, I'm on the fence about it. Aholland 20:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) ::I took a crack at it, then I saw this last note. My version was no better a solution, so I reverted it. --Aurelius Kirk 21:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) T'Lani and Kellerun? I'm wondering why the T'Lani and Kellerun are referenced here, just because of the pointed ears? If that is so, we could just as well add the Halanans, Terrellians, Ramurans (the same ear-piece was re-used for the three species) and Ocampa. --Jörg 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC) * There is none, I removed that. --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Vulcan/Rigelian connection What exactly is the dialog in and that connects Vulcans to Rigelians? Jaf 23:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf :Basically that they share a similar biology or chemistry. (I cut out the Spock/McCoy bickering and placed only the relevant dialog below.) ; : :*McCoy: Mrs. Sarek, you must understand the chances are extremely small to find a way to produce sufficient T-negative blood. ' :*McCoy: I see it, Spock, but that was a Rigelian. :*Spock: Rigelian physiology is very similar to Vulcan. :*McCoy: Similar is not good enough. It's still experimental. :*Spock: But it does look promising. :*McCoy: Spock, we would need such great amounts of blood that, even if the drug worked on the Vulcans, as well as a Rigelian, which I'm doubtful, it would still drain Sarek to a critical level. ' :*McCoy: A chemical stimulant to speed up reproduction and replacement of blood in the body. It's, uh, only experimental. :*Spock: It has been used successfully on test subjects on Rigel V. :*McCoy: It places a tremendous strain on the spleen and the liver. ; : :* Sloan: There's another rumor about Koval not contained in his file. We've heard he's ill. Something called Tuvan Syndrome. :*Bashir: I'm familiar with it. It's a neurological disease affecting mostly Romulans, Vulcans and Rigelians. It's degenerative and incurable at present. :From the dialog above, I think I see where the connection is made that indicates that Rigel V is, in the least, occupied by the Rigelians, if not, their homeworld. Something that was questioned on Talk:Rigelian. Additionally, the same dialog seems to make the T-negative connection to Rigelians as well, althought it could be a much simplier connection, such as the connection of replicating their blood (in general) and that it would work on Vulcans due to a simliar chemistry they share. Maybe the Rigelians have copper-based blood as well. --Alan del Beccio 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :: I should note that aside from the obvious differences in physical appearance between the Vulcans and Romulans vs. Rigelians (as we saw in ENT), there was also some throw away line in about the Rigelians having multiple sexes (genders), which seems to be another stark contrast (from what we know) between them and the Vulcan/Romulans. --Alan del Beccio 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ::So basicly we have a situation similar to the claim that Kobheerians, Dopterians and Ferengi are related somehow. It makes sense and it seems to hold, but it's not really clear and it has no name. The difference is in this case we have a page created of a non-canon term. I'm wondering if maybe this should be redirected to humanoid and then broken down there into subsections under taxonomy. Jaf 00:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Jaf Too much trouble? Does anyone else feel this is causing too much trouble for a word we made up to make things easier? Jaf 15:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Jaf : Since no one has made any comments on this page in like 7 months, no. --Alan del Beccio 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC) It spans several pages. Currently represented in an editing conflict at Reman. Don't get me wrong, I find MA making up new trek info as funny as the next guy. Jaf 17:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::It does span several pages, but there seems to be something of a consensus there. The "edit conflict" going on at Reman is between one fellow who likes making constant edits, and obviously hasn't read this discussion or article to begin with. -- Sulfur 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) :::can we call the ferengi like species ferenginoid? ::::Haha, I hope so. Jaf 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::::I just stumbled across this page after wondering who decided that Remans are "vulcanoid", now - and what do I find? An article with a big disclaimer stating that the term is something we made up... must have completely missed that, when we last discussed this. Anyhow, Remans need to be removed again, as they already were removed once, and I think the rest of the bunch (minus Mintakans) would better be listed under Vulcan offshoots or something, if at all. -- Cid Highwind 17:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) I agree that something has to be done. They use "proto-Vulcan humanoids" for the Mintakans in , maybe we could put the others under Vulcan offshoots unless we can come up with something better. I'd also suggest something about Remans in a background section because of all the conflicting editing it seems to have caused there. Jaf 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::::::If this is a made-up term to describe Vulcan-like races, I don't think it belongs here. Vulcans and other races like them are Humanoids; I don't really see a reason to give them a special name because they have pointy ears. Someone above asked whether we should call any Ferengi-like species "Ferenginoid". If we keep this, we are essentially saying "yes" to that question, and a creation of an article by that title would be valid. After that, things would get out of control; what if Trek introduces a species similar to Andorians, Tellarites, or Cardassians? Do we call those species with similar physical features "Andorianoids", "Tellaroids", and "Cardassianoids"? That would just be ridiculous. All the species listed above are Humanoid; there is no reason to create articles for those species who share another species' physical characteristics. --From Andoria with Love 02:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC) :::::The problem with "made-up" terms is that they necessarily rely on some "made-up" definition. What exactly does "similar to Vulcans" mean? "Stated as being Vulcan offshoots"? That would reduce the list somewhat. "Slightly green-skinned and with pointy ears"? This would still mean that we have to remove some from that list (Rigelians, for example), and wouldn't really be a good definition. "In some medical or physiological way 'compatible' with Vulcans/Romulans"? That would include Rigelians, but, among others, also Klingons (Worf was a compatible blood donor for some Romulan patient once). And in any case, we'd still know nothing about Remans. So, repharsing and moving this article to become one about offshoot races seems to be the best possible solution. -- Cid Highwind 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I think the core of this is that we need a place to address this problem as oppose to creating a place where we pretend to have a solution. Jaf 14:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::::What problem, exactly? If we just stop to use a classification that apparently doesn't exist "in-universe", what problem ist left that we need to address somewhere? -- Cid Highwind 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) The problem: There seems to be some connection between proto-Vulcan humanoids and Vulcan offshoots, however, nothing canon. Furthermore, Rigelians seem to be mixed in here somewhere, but again there is no way to connect all of this except through Vulcan, which is hardly satisfactory. And there is the talk of Sargon's species and Remans which after all the hype around here might deserve at least a background note on this future page. Vulcanoid solved a lot of this, but as I pointed out, it opened up a new can of worms. Jaf 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::::I'm not sure I can follow you, there. :::::*"Vulcan offshoots" are those races that definitely are of Vulcan origin: Romulans and Debrune. :::::*"Proto-Vulcan humanoid" are all races that were called that on-screen: Mintakans, and that's it. By the way, the fact that even a species so similar to Vulcans is called "humanoid" should alone be reason enough to not have this article. In any case, there's no connection made between these people and Vulcan offshoots, ever. :::::*Sargon's species: This is based on a very ambiguous statement by Spock. They and Vulcans might not be related at all. :::::*Remans: Again, where exactly is this from. Is there any on-screen statement that even hints at a possible relation between them and Romulans/Vulcans? :::::*Last but not least, we only know that Rigelians have a similar blood physiology to Vulcans and thus, share some dieseases with them. This doesn't mean they need to be called "Vulcanoid". :::::-- Cid Highwind 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) I think you misunderstand me. If you read back you'll see i've been questioning the logic of this article for a while. My point is simply that these races may be interconnected; proto, offshoots, ambiguous statements and fan speculation alike. If we just get rid of this article (which I support) the issue should be addressed somewhere. The very fact that it was allowed by various admins for so long says something. As for the Rigelians it's being drawn out of two statements, one on TOS and one on DS9, they are referenced above in the first battle over this page. Jaf 01:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf :::::I think I understand the "what", but not the "why"... You want to have information about this supposed connection somewhere. I'm just saying that this might not be necessary at all, because we don't have any valid information about the very existance of a connection. Without that information, we might as well restrict speculation about it to the existing species pages, or remove it completely. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC) I agree with all of you guys. This article is a pile of crap. I found it and thought there was really such a thing, this site hides non-canon info, it's a little disapointing. I tried to add a disclaimer but Shran keep reverting my edits. I got tired of his edit war, so I am posting my complaint here. ::Sorry if you happen to find it crap but the fact remains, that there are quite a few species that share "vulcan-esque" physical traits and imply some type of relation, enough so that the coinage of a term to differentiate these species from the rest of the lot of other humanoids (namely almost anything bipedal) seems perfectly reasonable. Do you find it unreasonable to imply a connection between Aurelians and Skorr? I mean There's never been any canonical evidence relating them right?—Foravalon. 1:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) :::Actually, the canon portion of the Aurelian and Skorr articles do not suggest they are related. Why? Because there is no canon evidence. Ever heard of Convergent evolution? The background, not canon, portion of the article only suggests that they look similar. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC) :And common sense says drawing a comparison between the two isn't beyond the realm of logic. Just like our vulcanoid species. So, okay, the Voyager vulcanoids are Convergently evolved humanoids similiar in appearance to vulcans, That still doesn't make them vulcans. And that still doesn't warrant the deletion of a page that serves to clarify in favor of muddying the evidence for the sake of incorrect simplicity. -foravalon :::My comment on convergent evolution was related to your comment on Aurelian and Skorr, not vulcan like humanoids. What we have makes them humanoids at least, and in my opinion vulcans that the writers just overlooked in lists of telepaths and such because they are background one-time appearance characters they probably forgot. But let us, for the sake of argument, ignore that. Humanoids really works fine, you know. We have a lot of Unnamed humanoids that resemble other species, but we do not make up terms like Kzintoid, or Cardassianoid, or Vidiianoid, or Jem'Hadaroid. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::Perhaps I am misremembering, but was the term 'Vulcanoid' used by T'Mir's crew in ? -- StAkAr Karnak 01:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) :::It is not in the transcript, for what it is worth... --OuroborosCobra talk 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)